Guns/firearms ?

[eschaton]

 

Early RL grenades were highly unreliable and troublesome weapons, because of the difficulty of making a reliable fuse.

 

Not really, they were in fact highly reliable and very effective, it was an iron ball with a cavity inside (made of two parts molded together) filled with compressed gun powder, sealed with a lead plug with a hole for the fuse and some wax.

Fuse cords are very reliable and easy to make out of nitrated hemp.

 

Discounting early experiments with grenades by the Chinese and Byzantines, they didn't come into use in the West until 1688 (the Glorious Revolution).  This is a bit later (probably around a century) than this setting technologically.  

 

Grenades didn't take off in a big way until trench warfare in the 19th century.  

[Woldan]

I don't know about the saltpeter shortage, but I think the demand for gunpowder was SIGNIFICANTLY higher in the 19th century when it was used for big artillery and countless platoons of riflemen than in the 15th or 16th century where it was used for some musketeers and other small arms. I imagine powder mills met the small demands of the 15-16th century military very easily. 
 

It would be thus easy to deal with this in an in-game mechanic by ensuring that gunpowder was too expensive for a peasant to have access to.

Thats IMO the only way to balance things without making gunpowder either stupidly weak or having implausible excuses for the rarity/absence of firearms.

 

Grenades didn't take off in a big way until trench warfare in the 19th century.  

 

Incorrect, explosive ammunition and grenades have been used in the 30 year war, also Napoleons troops excessively used grenades in artillery and hand held mortars in anti-infantry roles.

 

18th century flintlock grenade launcher:

 

 

 

By the way, Napoleon even used chemical ammunition! Explosive artillery grenades filled with chalk. Nasty. 

Edited June 28, 2013 by Woldan

[Jarmo]

Besides, don't remember if BG, but at least Icewind Dale had Oil of Fiery Burning and NWN had Firebombs.

Any peasant with couple of thousand GP's could get a load of those and burn those same knights.

 

And all weapons are going to be balanced and likely have low damage.

You could take a knight out with a single crossbow bolt, but that's not how RPG's play it out.

[Woldan]

Besides, don't remember if BG, but at least Icewind Dale had Oil of Fiery Burning and NWN had Firebombs.

Any peasant with couple of thousand GP's could get a load of those and burn those same knights.

Yeah, and I always wondered why it wasn't used by pretty much everybody. All of my party members had a couple of those oils in their quick slots. It was pretty fun to watch them all throw their firebombs at once and enemies drown in a sea of fire.

 

And all weapons are going to be balanced and likely have low damage.

 

You could take a knight out with a single crossbow bolt, but that's not how RPG's play it out.

 

 

Its still harder to hit a moving knight and kill him instantly with a perfect shot than throwing a grenade in a  bunch of people. 

Edited June 28, 2013 by Woldan

[Lephys]

Its still harder to hit a moving knight and kill him instantly with a perfect shot than throwing a grenade in a  bunch of people.

If you can get them to stand still long enough, or time the fuse so well that the grenade simply explodes before anyone can react to it, AND/OR you don't take an arrow to the shoulder and drop it after you've lit the fuse, AND/OR that Mage doesn't toss a fireball your way, igniting your entire grenade-filled-satchel dangling at your hip.

 

You act like the explosive power of grenades automatically makes you a god with the ability to just look at people and kill them instantly.

 

It would even be cool if, in-game, when you threw a grenade, there was actually a roll-radius for the ground-targeted throw, so that, AFTER you throw it, it would actually wind up in a randomly decided spot within a given radius, THEN explode to affect an explosion radius. So, you may throw a grenade at the center of a group of skeletons, and it may roll/bounce 8 feet to the right, and only strike 2 out of 5 skeletons instead of the whole group, as intended. Maybe a Throwing skill affects both the accuracy of the initial throw AND the control of rolling/bouncing (shrinks the potential roll/bounce radius from the point of impact)?

 

Not to mention, how much would those types of grenades weigh? Couple pounds a piece? How many of those would you feasibly carry around with you, to just throw at everything that moves? Plus, does everyone else just sit out of the fight while your grenadier takes out every foe in the land, single-handedly, since throwing grenades at things your frontline melee-ers are battling against would probably be hazardous to their health.

 

What about speedy enemies, like wolves? "Hang on, guys, I'm lighting a- AGH!!! *wolf clamps down on throat and tackles you*"

[Sensuki]

I will definitely be taking advantage of these

[Osvir]

What about "Animat" Guns? (Soul Guns pretty much)

Weapons powered by the same type of energy that powers the Animat Factories.

Need to make a stand-alone topic about this... Soulpunk

[Gfted1]

...(Soul Guns pretty much)

I like this idea. Maybe a "gunner" type character that via talents/skills allows faster firing and the ability to add various effects to the projectile with soul power.

[Bartimaeus]

or can you imagine for example Gandalf killing skuruts with shotgun?

 

Now that you mention it, that would be completely awesome. Someone should mod him in when the game is released...

[rjshae]

The problems with early firearms were the poor accuracy and low rate of fire. A skilled bowman with a longbow or composite bow could put up a much more effective rate of fire.

 

Ref.: The Puzzling Evolution of Guns vs. Bows

[Woldan]

You act like the explosive power of grenades automatically makes you a god with the ability to just look at people and kill them instantly.

Nah, I don't.

Not to mention, how much would those types of grenades weigh? Couple pounds a piece? How many of those would you feasibly carry around with you, to just throw at everything that moves?

Non-issue in games where girdles of ogre strength, bags of holding and characters that can carry multiple plate suits in their inventory exist. Not to mention PE will have one central inventory.

What about speedy enemies, like wolves? "Hang on, guys, I'm lighting a- AGH!!! *wolf clamps down on throat and tackles you*"

Explosives is a very powerful weapon system, but like any other weapon system it has its limitations.

 

The problems with early firearms were the poor accuracy and low rate of fire. A skilled bowman with a longbow or composite bow could put up a much more effective rate of fire.

Yep. However, the gun also has several advantages, it can store and release the energy with a trigger pull like the crossbow, it can penetrate the front of a plate armor, penetrate the knights body and often even exit the back of the plate. Very few weapons could do that other than firearms, like the cumbersome huge siege Arbalests.

A lowly peasant with very little training could kill a knight which were almost invulnerable back then.

[rjshae]

The problems with early firearms were the poor accuracy and low rate of fire. A skilled bowman with a longbow or composite bow could put up a much more effective rate of fire.

Yep. However, the gun also has several advantages, it can store and release the energy with a trigger pull like the crossbow, it can penetrate the front of a plate armor, penetrate the knights body and often even exit the back of the plate. Very few weapons could do that other than firearms, like the cumbersome huge siege Arbalests.

A lowly peasant with very little training could kill a knight which were almost invulnerable back then.

 

Funny, a similar complaint was levied against the crossbow--a weapon that took a week of training to master and was used to great effect, in combination with pikemen, against mounted knights. That's war for you. I think the point here is that the party is portraying highly skilled combatants who can take advantage of weapons that take a long time to master, giving them an advantage under most conditions. That lowly peasant would probably be dropped before he ever got close enough to be accurate with that gun.

Edited June 30, 2013 by rjshae

[Osvir]

I think we should just outright complain about hands in PE.

Hands are OP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qMHNFOtjYk

Edited June 30, 2013 by Osvir

[Diagoras]

I've never liked having blackpowder in a medieval game, its just too damn effective. A group of heavily armored knights could be wiped out with a single very primitive yet extremely effective frag grenade (iron ball filled with BP) thrown by a lowly peasant. Its just a gameplay breaker, and its illogical not to have things like bombs, explosive traps and wall guns etc. included when black powder exists.

 

No, no they couldn't. That's why heavily armored knights dominated the battlefield for 300-400 years after the invention of gunpowder.

 

Yes, gunpowder is like magic with the only difference that anybody can use it, a child could be a fireball throwing wizard that way.

 

 

No it isn't. That sounds like historiography that's at least 60 years out of date. Is this coming straight from Robert's initial Military Revolution lecture?

 

 

 

Of course the effects can be watered down to balance the game, but I think its better to just leave it out completely instead of having to jump through hoops to make it work.

 

Yeah, better drop those OP pikes as well. Damn Swiss with their pike rushes.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Diagoras

[Diagoras]

The problems with early firearms were the poor accuracy and low rate of fire.

 

 

This needs to be quantified and qualified. A pistolier, a mercenary arquebusier, and a Janissary sharpshooter are all going to be very different in this regard.

 

A skilled bowman with a longbow or composite bow could put up a much more effective rate of fire.

 

 

Except few civilizations used the English longbow other than the English, who were still a bunch of island-bound savages to a good Continental. And rate of fire is of little benefit if you can't penetrate armor consistently.

 

 

 

A lowly peasant with very little training could kill a knight which were almost invulnerable back then.

 

I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from, but this isn't remotely true.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Diagoras

[radioactivelullaby]

I guess it will take some time in the game until one finds firearms or has the money to purchase one like a full metal plate i the BG series. I wonder how much firearms will cost in P:E. Will it be more expensive than a full metal plate? and do we need to buy black powder and bullets like arrows for bowmen? that could make firearms a very costly enterprise and a strategic consideration..

[rjshae]

 

A skilled bowman with a longbow or composite bow could put up a much more effective rate of fire.

 

Except few civilizations used the English longbow other than the English, who were still a bunch of island-bound savages to a good Continental. And rate of fire is of little benefit if you can't penetrate armor consistently.

 

True, but... getting back this game, fantasy CRPGs often include both longbows and composite bows, even though neither were common in continental Europe. I think we can take them as a consideration until we hear they have been excluded.

[Diagoras]

 

 

True, but... getting back this game fantasy CRPGs often include both longbows and composite bows, even though neither were common in continental Europe. I think we can take them as a consideration until we hear they have been excluded.

 

Sure, it just seemed as if you were talking about a historical context. If you weren't then I don't really get what your original post was saying.

[Woldan]

 

I've never liked having blackpowder in a medieval game, its just too damn effective. A group of heavily armored knights could be wiped out with a single very primitive yet extremely effective frag grenade (iron ball filled with BP) thrown by a lowly peasant. Its just a gameplay breaker, and its illogical not to have things like bombs, explosive traps and wall guns etc. included when black powder exists.

 

No, no they couldn't. That's why heavily armored knights dominated the battlefield for 300-400 years after the invention of gunpowder.

 

Wrong.

They dominated the battlefield 700 years after the invention of gunpowder, the first time the combination of charocal, saltpeter and sulfur was mentioned was approx 800AD, China.

You forgot that gunpowder wasn't invented in Europe where the knights dominated the battlefield, it took time for that formula to reach Europe over the silk trade (late 13th century), and it took more time for those early alchemists to produce the ingredients and refine it, it didn't and couldn't happen overnight.

However, when they got it working and invented weapons that could utilize this new power it changed the battlefields pretty rapidly.

 

I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from, but this isn't remotely true.

You have never fired a matchlock gun, have you? I have, you can teach anyone how to operate, shoot and hit with such weapon in an hour, and contrary to popular belief they can hit man sized targets up to 40yds away very reliably, its 50yds where they start to get really inaccurate.

Simple people armed with matchlock muskets could very well shoot and kill heavily armored knights with very little training.

 

No it isn't. That sounds like historiography that's at least 60 years out of date. Is this coming straight from Robert's initial Military Revolution lecture?

It is. And I don't know that lecture you're speaking of. Edited June 30, 2013 by Woldan

[Lephys]

 

You act like the explosive power of grenades automatically makes you a god with the ability to just look at people and kill them instantly.

Nah, I don't.

 

Sorry. I must've misread that part about black powder grenades transforming even a child into an unstoppable wizard. I guess what you were really trying to say is that grenades wouldn't really make anyone very powerful at all (since most regular children are already unstoppable wizards), and that there's not really any problem with grenades in this setting being overly powerful at all. My response was for naught!

 

Non-issue in games where girdles of ogre strength, bags of holding and characters that can carry multiple plate suits in their inventory exist. Not to mention PE will have one central inventory.

You mean those games whose exact systems P:E isn't actually directly copying? Hmmm... probably best to reserve judgement until we actually hear official word on how much weight will affect things.

 

Also, I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain the only "central" (and apparently weight-unlimited?) inventory "sector" will be the Deep Stash, which is inaccessible during your adventuring travels. The interface will consolidate all your characters' accessible-yet-weight-limited belongings for ease of access/management (so you can, say, equip something to Steve that's currently being carried by Sally, etc.). But I'm pretty sure they said the size of this accessible portion of your inventory will still be dictated by the individual characters' stats.

 

So, now you can do 1 of 2 things: Continue assuming this just won't be an issue and refuse to address it, or actually address it since it has the potential to be an issue. *shrug*. Your call.

 

Explosives is a very powerful weapon system, but like any other weapon system it has its limitations.

Awesome. So you acknowledge my point, then. I greatly appreciate it. Grenades might, indeed, seem over"powered," but at the cost of the precise/reliable delivery of that power. It's not like I'm trying to say grenades are wussy and won't ever hurt anybody. You just seemed to be very concerned with how they'd cause a problem in the lore, because children could go around tossing grenades and taking over kingdoms. Methinks that will not be the case, is all, and I attempt to ease your concern with things you may not have taken into deep consideration.

[Diagoras]

 

 

They dominated the battlefield 700 years after the invention of gunpowder, the first time the combination of charocal, saltpeter and sulfur was mentioned was approx 800AD, China.

 

Right, I meant its development in the West. If I'd meant worldwide, my statement would have made no sense, as the development of gunpowder in China would have had no effect on Western heavy cavalry and thus wouldn't make any sense as a rebuttal.

 

 

 

However, when they got it working and invented weapons that could utilize this new power it changed the battlefields pretty rapidly.

 

Gunpowder weapons are used in Europe from the late 13th/early 14th centuries onwards, but don't even appear in field battles in a real way until the mid 15th century - and it's not until the deployment of the matchlock arquebus in the 16th century Italian Wars that we see gunpowder weapons forcing serious changes to the prevailing tactics.

 

Their contribution to sieges was more immediate, but still quite limited initially. It takes at least a century to see any real effect, and new defensive countermeasures quickly restore the balance between offense and defense in sieges to its previous state.

 

The historiography of this issue has been pretty solidly settled on continuation and evolution for at least 30 years, AFAIK. Gunpowder weapons were an evolution of the existing system of Medieval warfare, and were not a radical break from the past.

 

 

 

You have never fired a matchlock gun, have you? I have, you can teach anyone how to operate, shoot and hit with such weapon in an hour

 

So, that's not how the historical method works, for a variety of reasons. Primary and secondary sources are preferred over the insistence that you know how to drill a 16th century shot formation in an hour. From David Eltis' The Military Revolution in Sixteenth Century Europe:

"In fact, sixteenth-century arquebusiers, musketmen, and pikemen required considerable training to operate with effect, as did pistol-armed cavalrymen. Even those contemporaries who were sceptical of the superiority of firearms over the bow believed that firearms needed experience owners if they were to be used to advantage. None of them argued that the new weapons economised on training. The advocates of firearms promoted training in their usage with great zeal. Humphrey Barwick, who had been trained in musketry in French service in the 1550s, wished to see the English militia instructed in the new weapons forty-five days a year. It was firearms that needed most attention: 'the armed pikes and halberds and lances and speares are to be better to be made perfect in six daies then the fiery weapons are in 60 daies'."

 

So, the military instructors of the era seemed to take quite a different view. Possible reasons include that drilling a unit is a much more complex affair than drilling an individual, that teaching someone how to aim and fire under regular conditions is very different to having them do it while their comrades vomit their intestines up next to them and pikemen charge screaming across the trench, and that anecdotal evidence based on reenactments isn't very accurate.

 

In fact, if you have used a matchlock with the correct 16th century drill, you should know how incredibly delicate and dangerous an operation it really is. Incorrect procedure could result in everything from burned hands to blindness to shooting your scouring stick at the enemy. Also, feel free to peruse the records of any battle of the 16th century in an attempt to find any peasant levies with gunpowder weapons. You'll quickly notice that it's professional mercenaries and soldiers alone which are using gunpowder weapons, due to their complexity and need for constant drill making it impossible for peasant levies to develop the needed skills.

 

contrary to popular belief they can hit man sized targets up to 40yds away very reliably, its 50yds where they start to get really inaccurate.

 

 

Generalizations like this don't provide much if they're not quantified, but yes there existed units capable of hitting man-sized targets at those ranges (the Ottoman Janissaries sword by 65 yards with smoothbores alone). However, most shot fired in volleys at other units, so man sized targets aren't really a key measure. I'm also not sure what this has to do with the issue at hand.

 

 

 

Simple people armed with matchlock muskets could very well shoot and kill heavily armored knights with very little training.

 

Muskets? Not arquebus but actual musket? What kind of simple people with no training would be using those dedicated anti-armor weapons? Even if you mean arquebus, this entire issue hangs on the definition of "could". Of course any given outlandish scenario could possibly occur, but I'd be very interested in seeing any citations for this assertion. It would seriously call into question why pikes were so often deployed in the period if cavalry were this impotent, as well as how the astounding cavalry victories of the Italian Wars occurred.

 

 

 

It is.

 

Okay, could you please explain how gunpowder is like magic that any child could use? With any assertions cited?

 

And I don't know that lecture you're speaking of.

 

 

Professor Michael Robert's lecture that first set out the Military Revolution theory in 1956. While sweeping in its scope and laying the groundwork for Geoffrey Parker's revision, it propagated many of the fallacies that were rebutted first by Parker, then Hall, and finally the new wave of historians in the post 1990 period. These (most notably) included the idea of firearms representing a decline in firepower, the weakening of calvary, and firearms as a driver for larger armies through increased ease of use - all of which were outside of the historiographic consensus as early as the 1970s.

[Woldan]

Sorry. I must've misread that part about black powder grenades transforming even a child into an unstoppable wizard. I guess what you were really trying to say is that grenades wouldn't really make anyone very powerful at all (since most regular children are already unstoppable wizards), and that there's not really any problem with grenades in this setting being overly powerful at all. My response was for naught!

I said its very (too) powerful and it gives even people without or little training a lot of destructive power, and that anybody can use it. 

 

You mean those games whose exact systems P:E isn't actually directly copying? Hmmm... probably best to reserve judgement until we actually hear official word on how much weight will affect things.

Since weight will be existing in PE assuming there will be equipment and/or spells that will affect it is only logical. We have to wait and see what kind of inventory we're going to get but I really doubt it that we will not able to store heavy loot like armor in our inventory. (and I don't mean the ''deep central stash-away inventory''). Armor weighs a lot more than any grenade, unless we're talking about heavy artillery.

 

Awesome. So you acknowledge my point, then. I greatly appreciate it. Grenades might, indeed, seem over"powered," but at the cost of the precise/reliable delivery of that power. It's not like I'm trying to say grenades are wussy and won't ever hurt anybody. You just seemed to be very concerned with how they'd cause a problem in the lore, because children could go around tossing grenades and taking over kingdoms. consideration.

No, I've never said its a flawless design, I said its more potent than all the other weapons, that it requires little training to use, its easy to mass produce, it can defeat any armor and anybody can use it. And really, explosives aren't unreliable, I don't know where you got that from, sounds a lot like a cheap excuse to make it balanced.

Thats the reason why we're not fighting with swords and shields anymore, explosives and guns, while not being perfect by any means are much more powerful and easy to use.

 

[Diagoras]

 

 

I said its very (too) powerful and it gives even people without or little training a lot of destructive power, and that anybody can use it. 

 

Citation for that being the case for 16th century black powder bombs.

 

 

 

No, I've never said its a flawless design, I said its more potent than all the other weapons, that it requires little training to use, its easy to mass produce, it can defeat any armor and anybody can use it. And really, explosives aren't unreliable, I don't know where you got that from, sounds a lot like a cheap excuse to make it balanced.

 

 

Again, any historical citations at all from the 16th century? Because from what you're saying, all the Italian Wars should have consisted of lines of half naked men hurling grenades at each other.

 

Black powder explosives of that size were unreliable due to lack of an effective fuse system and weak due to the low power of black powder. The only use of black powder weapons in 16th century is for undermining, and that only works because you an put a whole lot powder in an enclosed space - and even then walls would often only partially collapse. I have absolutely no idea where you're getting the idea that grenade lobbing was a thing - it wasn't.

 

 

 

Thats the reason why we're not fighting with swords and shields anymore, explosives and guns, while not being perfect by any means are much more powerful and easy to use.

 

Which would matter if Project Eternity were set in the modern era. It's not. It's set in the Italian Wars era Europe. You know, those wars where people used swords and shields.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Diagoras

[Lephys]

I said its very (too) powerful and it gives even people without or little training a lot of destructive power, and that anybody can use it.

I see. So you weren't implying, nor have you been at all arguing anywhere in this entire thread, that that is in any way problematic in the balance of such things (especially in a game), because the tool's potency outweighs, to some degree, other factors? My apologies. I must be sorely mistaken.

 

Since weight will be existing in PE assuming there will be equipment and/or spells that will affect it is only logical. We have to wait and see what kind of inventory we're going to get but I really doubt it that we will not able to store heavy loot like armor in our inventory. (and I don't mean the ''deep central stash-away inventory''). Armor weighs a lot more than any grenade, unless we're talking about heavy artillery.

I guess it's also logical to assume that peasant children will have access to these items/spells, as well? And this will facilitate their ability to carry around 50 palm-sized iron balls filled with black powder at all times, so as to be an effective force against armored, disciplined foes at all times? My reason for pointing out weight limitations was not to say "You can't carry enough grenades around to ever attack someone because they're SOOOOO HEAVY." My point was that you'd have to restock fairly often, as an iron orb weighs a lot more than some bracers and arrows. Plus it takes up a pretty decent amount of space.

 

Also... why did you put the deep stash in quotes? You basically said weight would be a non-issue, and that P:E would have "one central inventory," in response to my pointing out carry limitations on grenades. So I clarified the distinction between the more-than-one parts of the inventory P:E will have. Is that somehow irrelevant to what was said? o_O

 

No, I've never said its a flawless design, I said its more potent than all the other weapons, that it requires little training to use, its easy to mass produce, it can defeat any armor and anybody can use it. And really, explosives aren't unreliable, I don't know where you got that from, sounds a lot like a cheap excuse to make it balanced.

Thats the reason why we're not fighting with swords and shields anymore, explosives and guns, while not being perfect by any means are much more powerful and easy to use.

I never said you said it was a flawless design. Also, guess what? Fire. Fire is more potent than all other weapons, requires little training to use, is easy to mass produce (just light flammable things), can defeat any armor and anybody can use it. Do we wonder why peasant children don't just go around burning entire armies to the ground and taking over the keeps of lords?

 

Also, I didn't say explosives were unreliable. I said that the precise delivery of that power is unreliable. Bear in mind, too, that we're talking about 16th-century explosives, here, so I'd say modern-day factors of explosives and firearms don't really apply to the reasons for using grenades/explosives/firearms 500 years ago. Let's stay consistent, shall we?

 

And for that matter, would you be so kind as to answer this question for me, so that I can avoid wasting your time:

 

IS there, or ISN'T there, a problem with primitive explosive weapons technology being allowed into the P:E setting? Because you seem to be saying there is (key word "seem"), but then, every time someone points out something like "well, here's why that's not really as much of a problem as you say," you keep falling back with "Oh, I never said it was a problem. I was just arbitrarily stating properties of explosives, and how, unlike any other weapon known to man, small children could easily use them to great effect. But I don't think there's any problem anywhere."

 

Heck, even just a subjective answer would be nice. ARE grenades fine by you, or are they NOT fine by you? I'm a bit confused on that.

[Jarmo]

In the equation you have bows, proper longbows, composite bows, crossbows and firearms.

 

Bows, being self bows or shortbows or hunting bows or whatever you call them, simply made things, were the first to disappear from battlefield, being replaced by crossbows.

It's easy to make a bow and pretty easy to learn to shoot with it with some small accuracy, but it's hard to make a bow with high pull strength that lobs the arrow with good force.

 

Weak self bows had very limited armor penetration and being ineffective against armored (even if only leather or padded armor) opponents. Better to use a crossbow.

 

English type longbows were rather special and it took a heck of a long time to learn to use it.

Mostly because it's pretty darn hard to make a 100lb pull with a couple of fingers, repeatedly, while maintaining the aim.

And in many battle situations, the faster rate of fire compared to a crossbow doesnt matter much.

If you can loose your 100 arrows in 10 minutes, then what do you do the rest of the day and is the crossbowman much worse off if it takes 30 mins for him to do the same?

 

By my reconing, firearms were seen to be kind of better crossbows with some drawbacks.

Not by such a huge margin better they'd have obsoleted either crossbows or longbows any time soon.

And the difference may have been mostly a kind of moral superiority kind of a thing.

 

Composite bows then, were limited the same way as longbows. Lots of time and effort to learn to wield a powerful one.

And they had the drawback of breaking apart in wet environment, a dry climate weapon.